Public Bill Committee

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]
LTB 01 Passenger Transport Executive Group
LTB 02 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
LTB 03 Greater Manchester Momentum Group

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 1, in clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert—
‘4D Guidance to senior traffic commissioner by Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State may give the senior traffic commissioner guidance as to the exercise of any of the senior traffic commissioner’s functions.
(2) The senior traffic commissioner must have regard to any guidance given under subsection (1) above.”.’.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Ann Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 5, line 39, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Rosie Winterton: Thank you, Lady Winterton. It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship.
Earlier, I was in full flow explaining the difference between the general directions that the Secretary of State currently issues to the senior traffic commissioner and their replacement, the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue in future. Following that, the senior traffic commissioner will be able to issue guidance and general directions to other traffic commissioners. It is all perfectly clear. The idea is to increase the independence of the traffic commissioners as a whole, but also for the senior traffic commissioner to have greater powers to introduce consistency among other traffic commissioners, while at every step of the way not interfering with individual decisions, which will continue to be made on a quasi-judicial basis.

Greg Knight: In essence, my point boils down to whether the Minister can tell the Committee where in the Bill it states that guidance issued by the Secretary of State cannot amount to an instruction in a specific case. If it is in the Bill, my argument falls and I will have nothing more to say about the matter. However, if it is not in the Bill, my point arises because the Minister’s amendment No. 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance and directs that the senior traffic commissioner must have regard to that guidance. It seems entirely reasonable that at the same time we should have a statement that the guidance will be only on the issue she mentioned and not in respect of a specific case.

Rosie Winterton: As I understand it, we have not said that specifically in the Bill. Clearly, general principles would be in the guidance. The Secretary of State could not direct a particular case and say that a commissioner ought to find in a particular way. The guidance is not legally binding—it is guidance.
The type of issue that might be covered could be that bus punctuality should improve. The guidance would look to the traffic commissioners to do that. General guidance to traffic commissioners might be to look at how they can work to improve bus punctuality, but a traffic commissioner would not be breaking the law if he or she did not succeed in improving bus punctuality, because that would obviously be unreasonable. I assure the Committee that the guidance will be about general principles. From the senior traffic commissioner onwards to the other traffic commissioner it would be about how to achieve; for example there could be details about how other traffic commissioners might achieve bus punctuality. The guidance is only about the exercise of the senior traffic commissioner functions, not individual traffic commissioners.

Norman Baker: While we are on the subject, may I explore the meaning of the well-used phrase in legislation, “with regard”? Does it mean that the senior traffic commissioner is simply obliged to read the guidance from the Government and cogitate on it, or that they are obliged to attempt to implement those guidelines?

Rosie Winterton: The traffic commissioner should have regard to the guidance, which means that they should take it into account in the exercise of their duties. What it does not mean, as I have said, is that they would be breaking the law if they did not manage to improve bus punctuality. It comes back to the issue of how to do things such as monitoring performance. The guidance would need to be about the principles relating to how the senior traffic commissioner carries out his functions.

Norman Baker: But if the Minister says to the senior traffic commissioner: “We want you to improve bus punctuality”—to take her example—is the senior traffic commissioner obliged to try to improve bus punctuality or are they free to conclude that there are other issues of more importance that ought to take priority?

Rosie Winterton: Like any guidance in such circumstances, if there were good reasons for divergence from the letter of the guidance in a particular case, the senior traffic commissioner may be able to do so. The idea of guidance is to guide, not to force in unreasonable circumstances. That is why we have tried to make a distinction from the previous situation where there were general directions that could have been more specific. What we want to achieve in the Bill, to assist with the issues of independence, is for the Secretary of State to be able to set parameters for how the senior traffic commissioner should operate, but not to direct them. The senior traffic commissioner would then have greater powers to achieve a consistent approach and to be able to direct the work of other traffic commissioners, which at present can be done only by consent and agreement.

Stephen Hammond: I want to tease a little bit more from the Minister. We have talked about the Secretary of State issuing guidance about improving bus punctuality, which is general guidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire might ask whether the intention is that the Secretary of State can say to the senior traffic commissioner: “You must improve bus punctuality in Manchester, Southampton and other places”. Is there to be instruction about a specific point? That is the concern.

Rosie Winterton: I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s concern was that if the traffic commissioner was sitting on a case involving a disciplinary matter, the Secretary of State would somehow direct the traffic commissioner on how to find in the case. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman made and I confirmed that it was not the case because in those circumstances the traffic commissioner would be sitting in the quasi-judicial capacity that we have talked about. The idea behind issuing guidance to the senior traffic commissioner is that it would generally be what the Secretary of State would like to see the traffic commissioners do in carrying out their duties. I used the example of bus punctuality because I think it is appropriate to the Bill, given the discussions that we will be having on the operation of bus companies. It is not about how to find in individual cases when we are talking about a quasi-judicial function.
Amendment No. 27 would remove the power that the Bill would give the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the senior traffic commissioner about the exercise of his or her functions. Because the whole point of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance, rather than the general directions that exist at present, I am afraid that we wish the Committee to reject the amendment. The point of the changes is to enable the issuing of guidance and as the proposal remove that provision it rather undermines the purpose of our changes.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: Can the Minister give us an idea of the sort of salary that a senior traffic commissioner will receive? How does that compare with the current salary of a basic traffic commissioner? I shall quite understand if she needs to consult about that question.
On the power to give guidance and directions, on page 5, subsection (4) states:
“The senior traffic commissioner must consult each of the following persons before giving any guidance or directions under subsection (1).”
It then lists a number of people who were referred to in our previous debate. Can the Minister confirm that in practice it will be “consult as appropriate”? For example, why would the senior traffic commissioner want to consult Scottish Ministers about an issue or concern that relates only to England? Does the subsection mean that in practice the senior traffic commissioner must consult all those people when it applies to them, or must he consult them even if they have no locus standi in the particular problem?

Rosie Winterton: As I understand it—I will correct this if it is wrong—an ordinary traffic commissioner receives a salary of approximately £90,000 per year, while a senior traffic commissioner receives £100,000. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about consultation, if we refer back to the Bill, it reads “subsection (1) above”. I believe that is because it is about the exercise of the traffic commissioners’ functions under any enactment. The key may be in “enactment”. However, I confess that I would be more than happy to come back with further information about the meaning of enactment. I suspect that it is not about every single decision taken, but that in particular instances relating to an enactment, the commissioner would have to consult with the appropriate people.

Norman Baker: Perhaps I can help the Minister. Subsection (5) includes a specific reference to a situation whereby a Scottish traffic commissioner is consulted.

Graham Stringer: Although I said that I wanted to take part in the debate on clause 4 stand part, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I think that my comments are more appropriate to clause 3.
As I listened to the debate about senior traffic commissioners and traffic commissioners, their terms and conditions and how long they are appointed for, a number of issues and questions arose, not least whether members of the Committee have ever met a traffic commissioner or senior traffic commissioner. There is a sense in which this debate has taken place—as in one sense it should—in a theoretical vacuum, without really understanding the terms and conditions, what traffic commissioners have done in the past and how they have been appointed. We must remember that if the Bill goes through unamended, it will give traffic commissioners considerably more powers than they have had in the past.
I am worried about some of these things. My experience of traffic commissioners is that some of them have been extremely hostile to local government and that some of them have known more about the regulations of Her Majesty’s services than they have about traffic regulations.
I shall put that into the context of what I am about to say, because at the heart of the Government’s decisions about independence and accountability and whether or not there should be long or short-term contracts for senior traffic commissioners is the real tension between independence and accountability. I think that they are contradictory, and that the hon. Member for Lewes was getting to that point. If a senior traffic commissioner is independent, however one tries to surround that commissioner with regulations and contracts, he is still independent. If, however, the strength of the regulations is such and the period of the contracts is so short that they are very constrained in what they are doing, they are not independent.
My core question for the Government is whether they really mean independent, or whether they mean what a Conservative Minister once said to me when we were asking for lottery money to be applied to the Commonwealth games—it could have applied to anything. She said that what was wanted was for the Government to “breathe” on the lottery funding bodies. I get the impression that these rules and regulations and short-term contracts are about “breathing” on the traffic commissioners. Will all these people be independent? If so, they need long-term contracts, fixed or otherwise, because when I have employed people and wanted to control them—apart from their expertise—I have had them on a very short leash and a very short contract. If one wants them to be genuinely independent and come to independent views, they should either be given long fixed-term contracts, or be made permanent. I would like an answer to that question.
Given my experience of traffic commissioners and their expertise in other areas— not necessarily the problems of transport in Manchester—I would like to know what sort of training and qualifications will be proposed as entrance requirements for what are important positions. I suggest—I am interested in my right hon. Friend’s reaction either now or in the future—that the senior transport commissioner should be subject to interview and interrogation by the Transport Committee. In the Prime Minister’s proposals for constitutional change he listed a number of posts for which people should be interviewed by Select Committees before appointment. The new post of senior transport commissioner is important, and if this Bill is passed as it is, that person will have immense influence over any quality contracts scheme and over the bus network in this country. It seems to me—my right hon. Friend the Minister may not have thought about this—that that is exactly the kind of person who should be subject to interrogation and interview by the appropriate Select Committee. I would be pleased to hear her response on that point.
I may have spoken too harshly about the influence that the Government tend to want over independent people. I know that the Government were badly burned by the actions of the rail regulator after the Hatfield crash, when the rail system effectively came to a halt. The rail regulator, who was independent, was responsible for billions of pounds, but the Government would not necessarily have endorsed the expenditure. The debt now carried by Network Rail is the result of that person’s actions. The Railways Act 2005 abolished that position.
I recast my question. I want to know whether the position of senior traffic commissioner is proposed simply to avoid independence and to keep some sort of control—as I said earlier, either through guidelines or short-term contracts—so that we do not suffer a repetition of that problem, although it would be at a lower level because that sort of money is not now available. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify those points.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend was in Committee this morning, and that is exactly the point that I made when explaining why we rejected the idea of short-term contracts. Amendment No. 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, would have introduced a short-term contract, and my hon. Friend may even have voted on it, but the Government’s response was that that is not the right approach. It is important for the traffic commissioner to be able to build up experience, particularly given the quasi-judicial role, and it is important that he should not always need to keep an eye on what might happen a year down the line. To ensure independence, it is important that the commissioner does not feel that his job will be up for renewal every three years; it should be a full-time appointment.
Hon. Members need to bear in mind that we believe that the Secretary of State should issue guidance rather than general directions, which is the position now, because it will improve the independence of the traffic commissioner. We have clarified why we want to change the position.
My hon. Friend asked about the issuing of guidance. It is important that traffic commissioners should be independent when making quasi-judicial decisions. It is important also that they should be accountable for the way in which they use public money and for their overall efficiency in carrying out their duties; and there should be accountability to Parliament, as the Secretary of State can issue guidance on some of the principles of operation. The traffic commissioner’s work will involve decisions about large sums of public money. In future he may also have to make decisions about bus services. It is important to ensure that the Secretary of State has the ability to issue guidance in that way. I would have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would think it rather odd if that were not the case given that the implementation of any Government’s transport policies depend on them being able to consider what guidance they want to put out.
With regard to training and experience, the main criteria is the ability to run a tribunal and have experience or knowledge of road transport law and practice. Those are the main qualifications for a traffic commissioner. I am not sure that I can see the Transport Committee as some kind of interviewing panel for the position of senior traffic commissioner. I do not know whether that would be appropriate if we want to ensure independence. It is a matter for the Select Committee to decide who it invites to give evidence. During the draft Local Transport Bill, I recall the traffic commissioners being summoned before the Transport Committee. I know that the Committee commented on the traffic commissioner proposals, particularly pointing out that it wanted to ensure that there was adequate funding. Therefore, it is up to the Transport Committee to be able to summon whoever it wants as witnesses. I hope that that is helpful.

Graham Stringer: Of course the Select Committee can invite anybody it wishes to attend. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister has suggested that Select Committees should look at important public appointments, and that before a person takes up a post, they should discuss with them their attitude to the job. I was asking my right hon. Friend whether she thought that this important position should be one of those posts in which the applicant is automatically interviewed by the Select Committee.

Rosie Winterton: If those are general criteria that are decided on a cross-Government basis—I have not seen the detail of those proposals to know exactly who they are thinking about in those circumstances—then they should be taken into consideration. I am sure that we would all like to see more detail of that proposal to assess whether this was an appropriate appointment to bring before the Committee.

Norman Baker: I shall be brief because we have gone around the houses on this. The contribution of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has been extremely helpful in crystallising some of the issues that we have been discussing. He is right to say that they are to some degree a trade-off between independence and accountability. He is also right to draw attention to Tom Winsor and the history of the rail industry. If in doubt, we should come down on the side of accountability because we are talking about public funds and the discharge of important public functions. There is considerable potential for an individual, with or without Government guidance, to behave in a way that is not sympathetic to Government policy, to the local authority in the area that they look after or to the needs of bus passengers and others.
I hope that the Minister will accept that we need to improve accountability procedures. She has already given one or two hints that she might be willing to look at matters such as annual reports and so on. Without over-egging the pudding, it is important that we have some answers. With the best will in the world, the Government want to see bus services improved. They may try to adapt the Transport Act 2000 to bring about those improvements and they will have support from many people in the country and in this House. However, there is a danger that they could be thwarted by the actions of individual traffic commissioners who will be beyond control from the systems put in place by the Government. When the Minister reflects on those matters, I hope that she will consider whether we need further controls. I do not mean day-to-day controls on the traffic commissioners—no one is suggesting that they be micro-managed or that their individual decisions be regulated on a day-to-day basis—but there should be regular checks to ensure that they are doing their job properly and are in line with public policy. I do not think that there are mechanisms for doing so. I have suggested a fixed-term contract as one way to do it. If the Minister does not like that, we must find a different way, but we cannot just allow people to be appointed—I agree with the point about the Select Committee, by the way; it is a useful suggestion—and then run off to do their own thing irrespective of what the public at large need or what local authorities or indeed Ministers want them to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Amendments of Schedule 2 to the PPVA 1981

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 4, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
‘(7) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the PPVA 1981 (grounds for dismissal), as amended by this section, shall apply to deputy traffic commissioners.’.
I apologise, Lady Winterton. When I intervened earlier, I failed to welcome you to the Chair. I remember that you chaired the Standing Committee on the Crossrail Bill last year. I enjoyed it immensely, and I am sure that we will enjoy this Committee immensely under your chairmanship as well.
This is a sensible amendment that I am sure the Minister will want to accept. It concerns deputy traffic commissioners, and in particular their dismissal. I genuinely hope that it will not prove controversial, because it appears to me that there is a loose end in the Bill. As things stand, the Secretary of State has the power to appoint traffic commissioners and to dismiss a traffic commissioner who
“(a) has misbehaved; or
(b) is unable, unfit or unwilling to perform the functions of traffic commissioner to a standard which the Secretary of State considers satisfactory”.
I do not think that anyone has a problem with that provision.
The Secretary of State has the power to appoint deputy traffic commissioners, who have a number of set functions. They carry out many if not all the functions of regular traffic commissioners. However, as I read them, the measures and their parent Act contain no provisions for dealing with a deputy traffic commissioner who misbehaves or is unwilling or unable to carry out his duties. If both traffic commissioners and deputy traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State and have the same functions, and if there are provisions for the dismissal of the former, should there not also be provisions for the dismissal of the latter?

Greg Knight: I can see why my hon. Friend might want that point in the Bill, but would not his concerns be covered by proposed new paragraph (3)? It states:
“Appointment as a deputy traffic commissioner for England and Wales shall be upon such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the time to be devoted to the duties of the office, as the Secretary of State may determine.”
It seems that the Secretary of State could quite easily put into the contract identical disciplinary and dismissal provisions to those for full-time commissioners.

Stephen Hammond: I dispute that. It might well be possible, but the proposed new measures contain set conditions for the dismissal of traffic commissioners. As the Bill states the set conditions for appointments, it seems normal to put in an amendment such as mine. As far as I can see, my right hon. Friend’s comment refers to conditions that may apply but would not necessarily do so, whereas my amendment would cover the eventuality and give the Secretary of State the power necessary to dismiss deputy traffic commissioners. I hope that the Minister can either give me some reassurance that I missed the point altogether or accept my amendment.

Rosie Winterton: I would not like to imply that the hon. Gentleman had missed the point altogether, but I hope to give a little clarification that might assist him. The amendment, as he said, would extend to the 17 current deputy traffic commissioners the clearer powers under clause 4 to dismiss poorly performing traffic commissioners. As we discussed earlier, the competence with which traffic commissioners exercise their statutory duties can have a dramatic effect on individual operators. Delays in processing licensing applications or granting variations to existing licences can mean that new businesses cannot start, existing ones cannot expand or that business is lost perhaps with disastrous consequences for the livelihood of operators and their employees.
Currently, as we have discussed, and which will continue under the Bill, a traffic commissioner is appointed until retirement and can be removed from office only by the Secretary of State on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour. As I said earlier, the Government believe that such power is not explicit enough. For example, it does not make clear what inability means. It does not state whether it refers to those who do not have the professional expertise to perform their functions in a competent and proper fashion, whether it means someone who does not work efficiently or someone who is just unwilling to perform their functions to an acceptable standard. The Government believe that the power should encompass all such situations and that all commissioners must have the professional competence to carry out their functions and be properly accountable for ensuring that they do so in as efficient and effective way as possible. That is why we want clearer powers.
However, deputy traffic commissioners work on a part-time and pro rata basis. They are paid only for the work that they do, and they work only at the request of the full-time traffic commissioners usually when they have an enormous amount of work and need helping out with particular cases. Unlike the traffic commissioners, the deputies are appointed on fixed three-year contracts. In the case of poor performance, it is true that the Secretary of State can decide not to renew their contract or that another new deputy could be recruited to the area. It would be possible simply not to use the deputy traffic commissioner if it were felt by the traffic commissioner that they were not competent. That would not be at a cost to the public purse because deputy traffic commissioners are paid only when they work.
Under the other powers in the Bill, the senior traffic commissioner would have the power, for example, to use deputies from other areas to cover short-term needs until, if necessary, a replacement was found. We do not consider it necessary to have within the role of the deputy traffic commissioner the same powers and the same need to go through the dismissal process that applies to a full-time traffic commissioner. That would complicate matters. The position, as it rests at the moment, provides the necessary mechanisms to take appropriate action in respect of poorly performing deputy traffic commissioners. I hope that I have been helpful, have clarified the position and given the hon. Member for Wimbledon the reassurance that I expect he seeks.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister was certainly extremely helpful. It was interesting to learn that deputy traffic commissioners are on a fixed term of office. I certainly understand her point that, given that it is a short three-year term of office, it might just be easier to leave someone on the list who would otherwise fall into the category of unwilling to perform functions to the standard required without going through all the dismissal procedures. I assume that that is what the Government would prefer, rather than taking the power to dismiss them. I assume that the Government are saying that because people are only appointed for such a short period, we do not have to use them. We can have them on the list of deputy traffic commissioners, not renew their contract after three years and not go through the disciplinary procedures that would be associated with getting rid of them. I think that is what the Minister is effectively saying to us. My amendment was offering the Government powers to get rid of people who are incompetent. I understand that exercising such powers may be too difficult.
I have listened to the Minister and am reassured that there are means of, if not getting rid of, at least sidelining deputy traffic commissioners who are not performing their functions. The key is being able to perform to the standards we are all concerned about so, with that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I still have concerns from our earlier debate about the question of guidance issued by the Secretary of State. When one looks at clause 4, a ground for dismissing a commissioner is that that commissioner has misbehaved. Will the Minister give an assurance to this Committee that misbehaviour will never be deemed to have to taken place where a traffic commissioner ignores guidance that, in effect, emanates from the Secretary of State? Unless she is able to give that assurance, it seems to me that the Secretary of State could, by issuing specific guidance, interfere with the quasi-judicial functions of a traffic commissioner.

Norman Baker: I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I would be more concerned, pursuant to his argument, about subsection 2 (b) which allows a dismissal on the basis that the traffic commissioner has not performed to a standard which the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. That is more of an open goal than misbehaviour.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my journey, which I do not criticise him for. In addition to my concerns over this phrase “has misbehaved”, as the hon. Member for Lewes has rightly said, it may well be that a traffic commissioner feels his duty to a particular area is to make, or not to make, a certain decision and that it could be argued under this clause that he was unwilling—not unable, not unfit, but unwilling—to perform the functions of a traffic commissioner. It goes to the heart of how independent these commissioners will be in practice in the light of the wording of this clause.

Rosie Winterton: What we need to consider is the fact that traffic commissioners are appointed and employed to carry out a public service on behalf of Government, through Parliament. Whatever Government were in power, if the Secretary of State wished to issue guidance as to how, for example, a senior traffic commissioner should operate their service, Parliament would expect that there should be some appropriate action if somebody wilfully ignored any direction or guidance that was issued through the Secretary of State, because these powers are given in an Act. It is important that we preserve that principle, because many people carry out public service duties and Parliament and the Secretary of State have a role in ensuring they are carried out in line with the will of the Government and of Parliament through particular Acts that are passed. That is an important principle to bear in mind.
I emphasise the fact that the Government hold traffic commissioners in high regard. We would only be talking about going through an entire dismissal process in extreme circumstances, for example, if a traffic commissioner consistently refused to comply with directions issued by the statutory senior traffic commissioner appointed under clause 3, or if there was clear evidence that a commissioner had acted improperly, such as acting for personal gain. I emphasise, however, that if one is talking about an appointment lasting until retirement, as opposed to a fixed-term contract, all of the processes would be open to an individual if they alleged that they were being dismissed for having made a particular decision.
It is quite clear that the Government do not want to use this power to erode the commissioner’s independence. We have come forward with the power because it was felt that there was a decision to be made about going down a line of short, fixed-term contracts. As I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, we did not want to do that because we did not want to erode that independence and perhaps be faced with somebody coming to the end of their three-year contract. How would a person feel in those circumstances? Would their decisions be influenced? One would hope not. My judgment was that it is better to have a normal process of recruitment and dismissal to overcome the feeling that people might be coming to decisions because they are reaching the end of their contract.
The powers that we are taking will extend only to the administrative competence of the commissioner. Their judicial competence, the decisions they make about individual operators, will remain a matter for the existing appeal mechanisms, the transport tribunal and the court of appeal. I emphasise that this goes hand in hand with the belief that not having short, fixed-term contracts is a more appropriate way to ensure traffic commissioners’ independence. However, we want to reflect some of the concerns that have been raised about the fact that it is not possible to take action if an individual consistently refuses to comply with directions issued from the senior traffic commissioner. We have tried to get the balance right and we believe that we have done so, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about interference with quasi-judicial decisions.

Greg Knight: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I would like to reflect on the points she has made; I am not entirely convinced that more does not need to be done, but that can be left for another day and I shall not seek to divide the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Transitional provision for existing traffic commissioners etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I want to probe the Minister with a few questions on the clause. Clause 5(1) states:
“Any existing traffic commissioner for a traffic area in England and Wales—
(a) on the relevant commencement, becomes... a traffic commissioner for England and Wales”.
In the explanatory notes it says that traffic commissioners already in post will remain in post on their existing terms and conditions of employment except that they will be subject to revised conditions of dismissal. That is not quite right, is it? Traffic commissioners who were previously attached to traffic areas, on commencement of becoming traffic commissioners for England and Wales, have revised responsibilities.
I would like to know what the Government have anticipated they might do in circumstances where traffic commissioners who were carrying out the functions once attached to those old areas but then potentially look to become a traffic commissioner for the whole of England and Wales, with new, upgraded responsibilities, are not competent to carry out those responsibilities. How will the Government deal with that? I can not see a transitional arrangement anywhere which states what will happens if a traffic commissioner currently in post is not competent to take on the new role. There is quite a big jump, for example, in some of the competencies that we are demanding of traffic commissioners in their new roles, as set out by the Bill.
I would like to be given some reassurance as to what happens to existing traffic commissioners who potentially do not have the skill set and the competency, which is desired from the new definition of a traffic commissioner.

Greg Knight: I have another point, which I think I know the answer to, although the danger is that if one thinks knows the answer to something sometimes one does not. I will therefore ask the question in order to clarify the matter because after all, that is what the Minister is paid for.
As I understand it, apart from the changes to the reasons for dismissal, the terms of employment are being carried over for those currently employed. The Minister spoke at the beginning of our deliberations today about possibly varying the number of areas for traffic commissioners. If, in the due course of time, she decided that one particular traffic commissioner ought to be made redundant, would it mean for the purpose of calculating redundancy pay, that his or her whole length of service would count? Or would it be that because of this particular clause they would be deemed only to have just started their work as a traffic commissioner?

Rosie Winterton: What we are talking in clause 5 are the transitional provisions to go to the new system. The one that particularly comes to mind would be the fact that the senior traffic commissioner would remain in post for 12 months, until a decision is made about who a new traffic commissioner would be and how long that term of contract would be.
With regard to any redundancies that may arise, I would be almost certain that there would be a continuous period of employment. I do not think we would be saying that this is an entirely new position. The employment conditions will remain the same but it is about the exercise of their powers which they will be able to exercise throughout England and Wales, as opposed to just in their particular area as it is at the moment.
As I have indicated before, we expect that most will continue to work in their existing areas but the senior traffic commissioner will have the power to deploy elsewhere. In those circumstances we do not believe that it will look radically different and I would venture to suggest that we do not envisage that the existing traffic commissioners are suddenly going to become hopelessly incompetent. It is more likely that in the future there may be a desire, because of the pooled approach, to recruit other people with particular specialisms—but that is for the future. What we are doing in the Bill is allowing greater flexibility for the traffic commissioners’ work, without in any way trying to undermine the job that they do at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

consequential amendments

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 6, page 9, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
Today, the Minister has already given us on several occasions some insight into how she sees the relationship between the Secretary of State and the senior traffic commissioner and other traffic commissioners evolving as a consequence of a number of changes in the Bill. I am probing and exploring that theme further, because the clause, labelled “Consequential amendments”, entitles the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to make further provisions in existing legislation on the functions and duties of traffic commissioners.
I accept that secondary legislation may well be necessary at some stage and that the Government may wish to retain that flexibility, but I am interested in and am looking for some reassurance from the Minister about the wording of subsection 2(a). The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments
“includes...the power to make different provision for different cases or for different areas”.
We are almost back in the realms to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was taking us. What exactly does she mean? What is the provision for the traffic commissioner to make different provisions for different cases? Is it that some areas are going to need more resources, so that is the flexibility talked about? Or is it that, in some cases, the Secretary of State might direct a traffic commissioner in something? I fear that if we are not entirely clear about the exact meaning, it may mean that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene in certain cases.
I am assuming that what the Government intends by “different areas” is what the Minister was talking about this morning—the flexibility to move traffic commissioners around England and Wales, or to develop particular specialisations. Again, could the Minister clarify exactly what are the circumstances envisaged in which the Secretary of State would need those powers? What exactly do “different cases” and “different areas” mean?

Rosie Winterton: Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to make any necessary consequential changes to other legislation through secondary legislation, to give full effect to the provisions in clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill. We have done that because there are a number of references in other legislation. To choose the Transport Act 2000, for example, there may be references to work that a traffic commissioner can do. The legislation might, for example, say that in order to get a particular licence or to operate in a certain way individuals should apply to the traffic commissioner in their area. What we are trying to do in the clause is to fit in with the idea that there might be functions that could be done more effectively at national level, say in an office of the traffic commissioner. If there were applications that could be made to such an office, it would be necessary to remove the function from the traffic commissioner in each region. For us to try to go through every piece of existing legislation and make the changes in the Bill would be time-consuming, and we might miss something out. Through secondary legislation, we have the ability to make any changes that would allow such activities to happen.
We think that there are more than 80 references to traffic areas in primary and secondary legislation, and more than 600 references to traffic commissioners. In order properly to implement the provisions in clauses 2 to 5, in some cases it will be necessary to make consequential amendments to many of those references.
The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which I take to be a probing amendment, would prevent those consequential amendments from making such changes. The problem is that it would reduce flexibility when implementing the proposals contained in the Bill.
It may help the Committee if I make it clear that all orders under that power would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and that any order under clause 6 will apply in Scotland only in relation to reserved, not devolved, matters. I hope that is helpful in explaining why clause 6 is in the Bill and why we are asking the Committee not to accept the amendment, as it would reverse what we are trying to do.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I understand the need for secondary legislation to be available so that the Government can amend previous pieces of legislation. I understand the concept of consequential legislation and accept that we need a catch-all early in the clause. I still struggle to see why what the Minister wants is not dealt with by clause 6(1), and why there are different cases and areas. I probably need to read the provision more carefully as I am not entirely convinced that it is absolutely necessary; such provisions are already elsewhere in clause 6. None the less, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I will reserve the right to write to the Minister about that and to seek an absolute definition of the wording. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Local transport policies

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection 108(1) leave out “and economic”.’.
Looking back at the relevant parts of the Transport Act 2000, I was struck by the number of words, and the next set of amendments will explore some of my thinking in the same way. I was struck by the word “economic”. To remind the Committee, section 108 of the Act states:
“Each local transport authority must...develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area.”
However, nowhere in the Act can I find a definition of “economic”. Part 2 of the Local Transport Bill makes interesting changes in how local authorities formulate and implement their transport policies. Given those changes, it is important to ensure that we are clear, and that we tighten up the definitions of exactly what a transport policy should be.
I do not think that anyone in the Committee will disagree with the assertion that a local authority should develop plans and policies that deliver the best value for money—that is especially pertinent at a time when many councils find themselves strapped for cash—but “economic”, in classic terms, means getting the maximum possible average utility for the amount spent and the maximum marginal utility for any extra money spent or, in shorter dictionary terms, the thrifty and efficient use of material resource.
For the provision to have any relevance to the Bill, it ought to include some definition of the words. I note that the next set of amendments proposes even more definitions. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government have a clear, precise definition of “economic”. If not, perhaps she will go back to her officials—

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman proposes an interesting probing amendment and I am interested in his comments. Would it not have been a better probing amendment if, rather than deleting “economic”, he had inserted “add ‘effective and efficient’”? Those are the three “Es” that the Audit Commission uses to test the public sector.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My amendment would have been more to the purpose if I had made that point. He will see that I shall be testing some of those words in a later group of amendments. I seek from the Minister some indication of exactly what she means by the word “economic”, how she intends to ensure that it is put into the guidance attached to the Bill and how she intends to make it known to local authorities for the purposes of their policy formulation.

Rosie Winterton: The amendment would amend the duty of local transport authorities under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000—to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley—to
“develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport...to, from and within their area”.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon wants to remove the word “economic”. His opening comments were quite helpful, as we were at something of a loss to understand what was meant by the amendment.
I believe, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members accept, that it is important for local authorities’ transport policies to be economic. Authorities need to take into account the costs of implementing their transport policies. I should add that transport is not an end in itself. Effective transport is often a key factor underpinning successful local economies. Transport can play an incredibly important part in getting people to and from work and getting goods to market, for example. The economic aspect of transport is critical, and we want local authorities to address it in their transport planning. Local authorities have said time and time again in my discussions with them that they see transport as a critical way of supporting the local economy, but at the same time they want to ensure how transport policies will be paid for.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister has fallen into the trap that I was worried about. She talks about having regard to local economies, which is clear and vital, but that is not necessarily the same as having an economic transport policy. To someone else that might mean value for money, how much is being spent, and what people get out of the policy. I have proposed a probing amendment to ensure that local authorities are given the correct guidance about exactly what the Government mean by economic. Does it mean that the policy has to stand up to some value-for-money spending test or is it about whether the policy supports the overall local economy? If the definition is left imprecise, local authorities will have to grapple with those important matters.

Rosie Winterton: It is a mixture of both, and that flexibility is important in local transport policies. When a local authority comes up with a local transport plan, we want it to be clear about how its plans will be paid for. Of course, those plans must be economic—it would be ridiculous for transport authorities to come up with plans that they simply cannot pay for and are just a wish list.

Stephen Hammond: They do that every day of the week.

Rosie Winterton: Conservative authorities do perhaps. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that every day of the week local authorities come up with unrealistic plans. I think that they plan quite well in terms of the policies that they introduce. However, it is also important that local authorities consider the effect that transport will have on their local economy. As I said earlier today on the Floor of the House, we issue guidance to local authorities on drawing up their transport plans. We review that information and consult with stakeholders about the guidance we are issuing. Most reasonable people would understand what we mean by first of all making sure that policies are economic in the sense that they can be paid for, and they would also understand that transport plans should aim to help to improve the local economy.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has proposed a probing amendment and I hope that having been probed, it was helpful.

Stephen Hammond: Slightly, but not very. The Minister said that she issues guidance, so presumably somewhere in it is a definition of “economic”. Is there or is there not that definition in the guidance? As I pointed out, one person’s view of the definition of “economic” can be very different from another person’s.

Rosie Winterton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the legal advice, which I hope will help—I think it is common sense actually. In legislation any word either has the meaning specified in the relevant legislation or the ordinary, natural meaning of the word. In this case, without a definition in legislation, the ordinary, natural meaning of the word will be used, which is not necessarily the same as a technical academic meaning. If we were all being reasonable, we could understand what we mean by economic and most people would accept that as a definition, as I have said. It means ensuring that transport policies can be paid for and help the local economy. The Committee should send the message that we want such a pragmatic approach to be adopted by local authorities when they are considering transport planning.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the legal definition.

Rosie Winterton: A lawyer’s definition.

Stephen Hammond: Or a lawyer’s definition of the word “economy”. The only trouble is that if we went heavily into party politics, we would find that we have many different views of the word “economic”. With your permission Lady Winterton, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I give the Minister notice that I might come back to the matter on Report.

Rosie Winterton: In the interests of being helpful, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if local authorities tell us that they are so puzzled by what we mean by “economic” that they are unable to put together transport plans, we shall attempt in guidance to help them along about what we mean. However, I believe that they will probably understand what we mean by the use of the word “economic”.

Stephen Hammond: One local authority might well know what the Government mean, but others may not. That is the point of my argument. Furthermore, the definition may change depending on who is in power. As I said, I thank the Minister for being helpful. I thank her for giving me the legal definition. I give notice that we might come back to the matter of definitions on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 108 (local transport plans), subsection (1)(a), after “efficient”, insert “environmentally sustainable”.’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 153, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) to reduce aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases from local transport activities, taking Government targets as defined in legislation and guidance as a minimum.’.

Norman Baker: I am interested in a different “E”. It stands for environment or the phrase “environmentally sustainable” that I want to insert into the clause. I must say straightaway to the Minister that I do not intend to define that phrase in the Bill, but I am relying on its natural meaning to come across and hope that she understands what I want to convey. I want to reflect on the fact that the Transport Act 2000 to which reference was made when we discussed the previous amendment, required local transport authorities to develop transport policies that are safe, integrated, efficient and economic. I argue that, if we intend to elevate such principles to the front of the local transport plan, it would be an omission not to include—these days particularly—environmental sustainability.

Graham Stringer: I do not intend to let the hon. Gentleman get away with running away from definitions so easily. I have asked at least 10 Transport Ministers to define “sustainable”. They have not come up with the same answer. Some of them have not come up with any answer. I should be interested in his definition of “sustainable” under the amendment.

Norman Baker: I shall happily do my best. The most significant challenge that we face is climate change, so we must move towards a transport system that minimises as far as possible the emission of carbon. That is not the entire definition of sustainability. There are other issues, such as whether to take up the countryside with new roads and so on, but my primary objective in tabling the amendment and amendment No. 153 is to deal with climate change.
Before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that our objective is to elevate the concept of the environment to the same position of importance as the other criteria of safe, integrated, efficient and economic. It is not appropriate merely to have the issue placed somewhere else in the Bill. The Minister might come back to the reference under clause 8(4)(2ZB)(b) to having regard to the “improvement of the environment”. That is true, but it is not placed in the same elevation as the four adjectives of safe, integrated, efficient and economic, which it should be in these days of concern about climate change.
A moment ago, the Minister referred to the importance of transport underpinning the economy. That is perfectly true. We must have a good transport system to enable the economy to function. She will also recognise that, when people move from A to B, there is an environmental consequence. A footprint is generated by that movement—more if it is aviation, but less if trains are involved. When drawing up plans, it is important that local transport authorities have such a matter at the forefront of their thoughts to ensure that they taking it into account when formulating their policies. It would not be a good transport plan if it met the four conditions presently required of safe, integrated, efficient and economic, but had total disregard for the environment and a largely negative impact on carbon emissions, in particular.
The Minister will tell me that the Government are the first Government in the world to introduce a Climate Change Bill, and many of us are very pleased about that. The Climate Change Bill will require each section of society that is responsible for carbon emissions to significantly minimise those emissions by 2050. The Minister will also be aware that the transport sector is responsible for about a third of the carbon emissions in the country—perhaps marginally less. Therefore, what local councils do with their transport policies, with guidance from central Government, is crucial if we are to meet the carbon reduction targets that the Government have rightly identified to take on the climate change challenge that we all face. The Department for Transport will have to meet its own targets, which must be counted in with the Government’s efforts to try to cut carbon emissions. It would be peculiar if, at the same time as recognising this huge challenge facing society and the huge cut in carbon emissions that is needed, we do not even mention, as one of the primary objectives in the local transport plans, the question of environmental sustainability.
Amendment No. 153 goes even further. It recognises that we should be asking local transport authorities to set targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities in their area over which they have influence. We are all going to have targets. We have national targets, Government targets, and internal targets for each Department. Why should the local transport plans not be proactive and help the Government deliver their overall national strategic policy of carbon cuts by having their own reduction targets? Without that specific requirement up front, local transport plans will carry on very much as they have done, delivering a mish-mash service with a bit of economic development here, and helping people to get from A to B. The traditional objective of the local transport plans will carry on. Unless we highlight the environment in a way that has not been done previously, I have no confidence that the local transport authorities will respond to the climate change challenge that we all recognise needs to be met. The Government will be in danger of having a national target that is not being delivered locally because local transport plans are not pursuing it.

Greg Knight: I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making in respect of amendment No. 153, but how would a local authority enforce it? If their targets have been met, would they then say that a major city or town, for example, will have no more diesel-powered buses for the rest of the year? Surely, such a measure is unenforceable at a local level.

Norman Baker: I do not think that the measure is unenforceable because when the local transport authorities draw up their plans, they will have consultations with a number of bodies, as indeed they should. That will include bus operators. If my amendments are accepted—I think that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has similar amendments—they will include discussions with the rail operators in a particular area. As part of the discussions for fulfilling the contract, they can start specifying the sort of buses that they wish to see. They could have influence over the timetable and the frequency of buses. Through such measures, we can realistically identify ways of reducing the carbon footprint in the transport sector. I do not think that it is impossible. I agree that it is not possible to tie it down to the last possible degree and say that we will achieve it by 8.3 per cent. However, it is possible to highlight environment sustainability in a way that is not presently done and to try to hold some discussions that are not taking place now. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my arguments and I look forward to her response.

Kerry McCarthy: I agree to some extent with the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes although I do not think that his amendments are necessary to achieve the objectives that he espouses. I may be pre-empting the Minister, but I think that the provisions in clause 8 outlining the new duties on local authorities with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment will be sufficient. In my constituency and in Bristol as a whole, there is incredibly strong support for the sort of environmental objectives that he mentioned. I probably get more letters on climate change than on any other topic. Bristol aims to become the green capital of the United Kingdom—a laudable ambition.
There is particularly strong support for cycling in Bristol; apart from walking, it is most environmentally sustainable system of transport. That is already reflected in the local transport plans, but I hope that this new provision will give greater impetus to it. Sustrans, which is based in Bristol, has just won £50 million from the People’s £50 Million contest for developing a national network of cycle paths.
On a slightly more controversial note, the strength of support for cycling was demonstrated when it was suggested recently that there might be a rapid transport bus link alongside the Bristol to Bath cycle path. More than 10,000 people signed a petition and more than 1,000 marched in order to demonstrate their support for that project. I am glad to see that Bristol city council is working with Sustrans on developing schemes to improve bus travel in the city and to improve cycling provision—although the former should not be at the expense of the latter. When considering moving forward with the local transport plans, that is the sort of partnership that we need.
While talking about sustainable forms of transport, the Minister recently visited my constituency and travelled on the showcase bus route, the second in the city. I use this opportunity—perhaps somewhat audaciously—to make a plea for her to release the further money needed for the third showcase bus route and a bus lane on the M32. Now that that is out of the way, I turn to the amendments.
As suggested by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, it would be incredibly burdensome for local authorities to have to meet specific targets. We are always being urged to reduce the number of targets and to give local authorities the freedom to decide how to operate and the flexibility to decide what is best for the locality. With something like transport—by definition, it means moving in and out of local authority boundaries—I do not see how local authorities or integrated transport authorities, which are responsible for everything that happens within their boundaries, could be held to legally binding targets. The Liberal Democrats support that in terms of the national climate change targets, and I accept their good motives, but it needs to be expressed as general guidance to local authorities rather than something that ties them down.

Stephen Hammond: As the hon. Member for Lewes said, the provision places certain obligations on local authorities under their local plans. He wants to place two more obligations on them. The obligation of environmental sustainability seems sensible, although I assumed that it was already there. One person’s definition of “integrated” and what it implies is another person’s mis-definition, which is why I thought it was probably included. It is certainly there in clause 8.
The hon. Gentleman would have overcome the definitional questions about which he was being probed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley if he had used the words “with respect to protection or improvement of the environment” as the criteria. None the less, I have spoken several times today about the principle of including in the Bill a clear interpretation so that mistakes cannot be made.
I would have sympathy with the hon. Member for Lewes if he wished to press amendment No. 145 to a Division. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, East about amendment No. 153. First, a plethora of Government targets is already imposed on local authorities. What she said about transport moving and therefore being more difficult to capture in a discrete area is also relevant. Although I have some sympathy with the aim of amendment No. 153, if the hon. Member for Lewes were to press it, I would not ask my colleagues to support it. We may not vote against it, but we certainly would not support it.

Ann Winterton: This has been a short but instructive debate with lots of interesting observations. I am worried about my speech because most of my points have been anticipated by other members of the Committee, but it is important that we have discussed issues relating to sustainability and the reduction of transport emissions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East on cleverly raising the issue of the third showcase bus route. I visited her constituency and I was impressed at the enthusiasm for looking at other forms of travel, particularly cycling. I managed to congratulate Sustrans on the work that it has already done to promote cycling in the constituency. It is something that my hon. Friend is very keen on and I know that she was concerned about the other bus route and that cycling in her city should not be undermined as a result. I am pleased to see that it looks as though some accommodation has been reached on that.
Hon. Members have raised a number of points about amendment No. 145. That would add an explicit reference to environmental sustainability to the duty under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000 for transport authorities to develop and implement policies on transport. The sustainability of present and future transport arrangements in a local authority area is clearly one of the most fundamental issues to be considered when drawing up policies and plans. As was anticipated in the opening remarks, clause 8 already places a new duty on local authorities to take account of the Government’s policies
“with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment,”.
It also requires those authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to that.
In such guidance, we would expect to cover issues such as air quality, noise and climate change—matters that local authorities would need to address when devising and implementing their transport policies and local transport plans. That is further supplemented by the Government guidance issued in September last year as part of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006. In exercising any of its functions, every local authority must have regard to that report, which includes guidance on transport among a full range of other advice. In that light, I would expect the environment and sustainability to be at the forefront of a local authority’s mind, both in developing and implementing its transport policies, and in producing local transport plans. We expect any guidance that we issue to address questions of sustainability and the environment in relation to transport in local areas. I understand the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes—he obviously takes the issue extremely seriously, as do we all—but I do not think that there are any obvious gaps to fill in the existing duties for local authorities as amended by the Bill.

Norman Baker: There is indeed guidance—I referred to it in my opening remarks—but the Minister has not yet given me an explanation why, in respect of the four key words “safe, integrated, efficient and economic”, which are elevated above all others in the Transport Act 2000, there is no reference to the environment. That is what concerns me. The environment is effectively second-tier compared with those four criteria.

Ann Winterton: I have tried to explain the various other duties, particularly those relating to the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, in clause 8. We feel that there is adequate guidance and instruction to local authorities to consider the effect of any plans on the environment. Amendment No. 153 would create a new duty on local authorities developing and carrying out transport policies to reduce the total level of greenhouse gas emissions from local transport in their area, taking Government targets as the minimum standard to be achieved.
Of course the Government seek to reduce emissions across the economy and not just within transport. The Stern report highlighted the need for flexibility to take action where it costs least in order to ensure that the cost of mitigation is manageable. The Climate Change Bill, which recently came to the House from the other place, will provide binding legislation for this country to meet its climate change obligations. It will also set a long-term framework for cutting total UK domestic CO2 emissions by 26 to 32 per cent. by 2020 and by at least 60 per cent. by 2050.
The transport sector will have to make a deliverable, measurable and cost-effective contribution to those targets. In October 2007, the Government published a new framework document, “Towards a Sustainable Transport System”, with the aim of delivering a transport system that both supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions. We are discussing our climate change challenges with stakeholders and will publish our thoughts in a Green Paper later this year for more formal consultation. We will also identify potential emissions reduction pathways for transport, considering the full range of options for putting transport on a less carbon-intensive path and including different types of journeys and transport modes.
Although I understand entirely what the amendment is meant to achieve, introducing such a duty on local authorities on a local level relating to transport alone could prove counter-productive by reducing their flexibility to contribute to the achievement of national targets—a point that was made earlier—and preventing them from achieving the best value reductions for their resources. I believe that the Government’s proposed approach offers a better way forward, and I hope that, given that reassurance and the other commitments, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker: The suggestion that flexibility should be applied is, on the face of it, entirely reasonable, but flexibility in this matter all too often makes some people think that they have a licence to carry on as normal and that others should make cuts to achieve the Government’s targets. Some will interpret flexibility as an excuse to do nothing. Although industry has made significant cuts in carbon emissions and they are even now being made in the home sector, transport emissions continue to rise. I am sorry to say that the Government’s policies, particularly on aviation, suggest that those emissions will rise significantly more, rather than being cut. I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument that flexibility will necessarily deliver the overall cuts that she implied.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask local authorities to consider not simply the totality of their carbon emissions reduction targets, but what they are doing sector by sector. Local government acts in silos, just as central Government do. It is the natural function of government to behave in that way. If we can get integrated government, great, but that is how people behave.
My question to the Minister is, if she does not like amendment No. 153—I freely accept that there are difficulties with it—what confidence can we have that what she is putting in place will deliver carbon reduction targets from transport locally, and that the impetus will be there for local councils and others to take the movement forward to meet the Government’s national targets? I am not convinced that that impetus is there, and the Government are in danger of having a national target that they cannot enforce because, locally, the action has not been taken to render it effective.
My other concern is on amendment No. 145. The Minister can find arguments against amendment No. 153 that are to some extent legitimate, although I do not think she has come up with an alternative, but on amendment No. 145 she is on more difficult ground. On that amendment, I have argued that sustainability, however we wish to define it, is a key issue—there is no getting away from it. I have heard no argument to justify the fact that it should not be on the same level as “safe”, “integrated”, “efficient” and “economic”. If she is arguing that it is highlighted in other legislation as being central, it is difficult to understand why the Government wish to be inconsistent and exclude it from the list of criteria that apply under the Bill. The reality is that the transport sector generally has not been good at dealing with carbon emissions; it has seen itself as being above and exempt from that, whether at local or national level. The amendment is a way to highlight that.
I fear that even with the intentions referred to in clause 8, which I readily acknowledge as a step forward, the Government are saying, “Well, let’s make sure that your transport is safe; we must do that. Let’s make sure that it’s economic, however we define economic. Let’s make sure it’s efficient and integrated”—most people think that buses and trains together is the normal understanding of that word—“and once you’ve done all that, you can pay some regard to the environment.” It is a second-tier requirement and the Minister has given no explanation of why the environment should not be a first-tier requirement. I feel quite strongly about this issue, so I shall ask the Committee to divide on amendment No. 145.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

References to local transport plans

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: May I ask the Minister a specific question? What would be the effect of not including paragraph 8 of schedule 1? Would it mean that road user charging and workplace parking levies could not go ahead?

Rosie Winterton: I hope not. Perhaps it would help if I started by explaining a bit of the background to the schedule.
Schedule 1 will make a series of amendments to the Transport Act 2000 and replace references to local transport plans in the provisions on buses and road charging in parts 2 and 3 of the 2000 Act, with reference to local transport policies. Under each of the existing references to the 2000 Act, a local transport authority’s duty is linked to its local transport plan. For example, at present, under section 139 of the 2000 Act, an authority must have regard to its local transport plan in determining what local bus information should be made available to the public. Similarly, a local authority can have a workplace levy parking scheme only if it appears desirable in terms of the policies in the authority’s local transport plan. Also, an authority is able to spend its revenue from a workplace parking levy or road user charge only on directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies in its local transport plan.
We have made these changes because we think local transport authorities should be able to start implementing new policies once they have been agreed, rather than having to wait until those new policies have appeared in a revised and republished local transport plan. Having said all that, it is important to recognise that for the revenue that would arise from either a workplace parking levy or a road user charging scheme to be put into policies in the local transport plan, it would have had to appear in the local transport plan in the first place.
With regard removing paragraph 8, that paragraph makes only a very small adjustment to the existing wording. However, that adjustment is necessary to bring the provision made by paragraph 8 of schedule 12 to the 2000 Act within the application of the new definition in section 108(5) made under clause 7(5) of the Bill. I am very impressed with that explanation, as I hope the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is.

Greg Knight: Impressed, yes; supportive, no. I want nothing to do with anything that facilitates road user charging or workplace levies.

Question put, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 8

Nature of duty to develop transport policies

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) to have regard to any relevant plans and strategies published by any relevant rail infrastructure manager.’.
The Committee will have noticed that amendment No. 36 and amendments Nos. 38 and 39 in clause 9, which I think we will have a chance to discuss later on, are very similar.
Just prior to lunch, the Minister was asking exactly how we formulated the amendments and how much outside help we had received. I have to acknowledge that here we are grateful for the briefing from Network Rail. Only on these amendments and on one other group have we received significant help and not managed to formulate the proposals ourselves. The purpose of these measures is to ensure that when developing transport plans and policies, local authorities have regard to the policies and plans of those charged with operating the rail network.
The concept is fairly simple. A significant proportion of travelling is done by rail—people and goods, travelling in and out and through local areas, and within local areas, by train. The rail network transcends local authority borders and in a number of examples is not operated and managed by local transport authorities. However, at the beginning and end of train journeys, users obviously rely on transport services put on within and by the local authority. Those services are partially governed by plans, so that represents integration. The new integrated transport authorities, which I will come on to, will have an obligation to consider integration across all modes of transport. It makes sense, therefore, that local transport authorities should consider that as well.
The amendment would ensure that local transport authorities had “regard to” the plans and strategies provided by any rail infrastructure manager. My understanding and reading is that “rail infrastructure manager” also covers operators. The amendment would place an obligation to consult or have regard; no duty would be placed in respect of developing the whole plan or policy, or to put into the plan what the rail network told them to include. I do not see the duty to consult and to have regard as an onerous burden on local authorities; it is a question of consultation.
I believe that “relevant rail infrastructure manager” is the right definition. It is defined in statutory instrument No. 599—the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006—which covers Network Rail, train operating companies, both passengers and freight.
The amendment refers to “relevant plans and strategies”. I mean that and I think that most people’s common understanding of it means Network Rail’s route plans and utilisation strategy. Those set out current capacity, passenger and freight demand, passenger and freight demand trends, operational performance cost and projections as to how the future requirements of rail users and funders should be met. Therefore, those rail utilisation strategies should inform the thinking and the consultation process.

Graham Stringer: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman and I would be grateful if he explained further what “have regard to” means. I am not playing games with the previous questions to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that, in all circumstances, Network Rail’s policies will have priority over local integrated transport authorities. If that is what he is saying and that is the definition he is using, I would be grateful if was explicit.

Stephen Hammond: No, that is not the definition, nor do I understand the normal legal definition of “have regard to” to imply that either. As I said a moment ago, there is an obligation in the Bill on integrated transport authorities to consider integration across all modes of transport, but the amendment provides for an obligation on local transport authorities as well.
I am happy to accept the Minister’s correction as to exactly what “have regard to” means—my understanding and, I guess, the common parlance and common-sense version is that, after consulting, those involved must at least listen to what was said. If they then choose to ignore what was said to them, that is satisfactory, because they have consulted and had regard to it. I understand that to be the normal meaning of what is put in Bills, but I am happy to be corrected.
Before taking that intervention, I said that rail utilisation strategies are the basis on which Network Rail operates its consultation with local authorities and stakeholders—a formal review process. The amendment would make that process work both ways: just as Network Rail consults local authorities on rail utilisation strategies, so the authorities, when they put their local transport policy plans together, should consult Network Rail.
I understand why I am in the wrong, but I also understand that the Government might intend to produce some guidance to local authorities on whom exactly they should consult in the formulation of their local transport plans. I am looking for the Minister to update us on that and to give us more guidance.
It seems to me that local authorities and local people know their areas better, although some local decisions have to be taken in a national and regional context. It is the rail network that needs such context. My amendment would put the appropriate requirement on local authorities—they should consult and “have regard to” the response that they receive from the “rail infrastructure manager”, which covers both Network Rail and the operators, as well as the demands of both freight and passengers.

Norman Baker: I shall be brief. I rise to support the amendment. We have the renaming of passenger transport executives as integrated transport authorities. We have bus strategies being abolished. Quite clearly, the intention of the Government—sensibly—is to integrate rail and bus. How could it be anything other than sensible to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon?

Rosie Winterton: When drawing up integrated transport plans, which is what we want authorities to do, I know how important it is to look across the different modes of transport in an area. One of the points made by many of us as to why we want to take greater powers for local authorities is that people get infuriated when they arrive by train only to find that the bus left five minutes previously. I am sure that, for many of us, that is a constant refrain from our constituencies. We certainly believe that it is important to take a truly integrated approach in local transport plans.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would put in place specific statutory requirements for transport authorities to consider future relevant rail schemes in their transport policies and plans. Consultation is already an integral part of the development of the local transport plan process. Local transport authorities consult bodies, including Network Rail. That level of detailed consultation is seen as vital in developing future transport policies. Similarly, Network Rail consults local authorities extensively in the development of its route utilisation strategies—as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Clause 9 requires local transport authorities to consult about local transport plans, but the only consultees specified are certain other local authorities and the Secretary of State. The clause also states that local transport authorities must consult “such other persons” as they consider appropriate. With a few exceptions, under the Bill local transport authorities themselves will decide on which individual organisations to consult and in many cases that will include rail infrastructure managers, as we call them. Indeed, many other important and relevant local, regional and national strategies could be produced by other organisations.
I am thinking of examples such as integrated regional strategies and, in some cases, local crime and disorder reduction strategies, which could be very relevant to local transport plans. When considering the amendment, it is important that consultation between local transport authorities and Network Rail works in both directions. A specific duty on local transport authorities to have regard to Network Rail’s plans and strategies without a corresponding duty on Network Rail would work in only one direction.

Stephen Hammond: As I explained, there is a duty on Network Rail to have such regard in its rail utilisation strategies. It is doing what the Minister wants it to do, which is to work both ways.

Rosie Winterton: Rail utilisation strategies can be quite different from the future rail management schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, the Government intend to develop guidance for local transport authorities in the preparation of the next round of local transport plans. The matters that local transport authorities would need to consider when drawing up their plans, including rail strategy and proposals, could be covered by the guidance. Because of my point that there could be other people and authorities that it might be necessary to consult, we do not want to pick out in the Bill particular bodies such as Network Rail, as opposed to other integrated regional strategies or crime and disorder partnerships that might be equally relevant when drawing up a plan. I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we shall be making sure that it is clear in guidance that that is exactly the sort of body that local authorities should consult. In the light of my reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister has defended her position, but she did not address some of the points raised by the amendment. One of the reasons why the amendment is important is that rail infrastructure is trans-local, regional and national in nature. As I explained in my opening remarks, a key point is that the amendment would place exactly the same burden on local authorities as National Rail has at present.
The Minister said that local transport plans will need to consider the future whereas route utilisation strategies do not, but that is exactly what they do. She also said that she expected that local authorities would include people in their consultation process. There was not a categorical “must”. To rehearse our arguments about consultation this morning during our debate on clause 3, if the right hon. Lady tells me that on Report she wants to add the other people to the statutory consultation, I should be relatively happy to leave things unambiguous, but I am not sure that the people whom she mentioned were in any way as relevant as the rail infrastructure manager or the rail operator. As she rightly said, local authorities will need to take some regard of such people when we want to integrate bus and rail services.

Rosie Winterton: I have some difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s point about other bodies not being as relevant as Network Rail. Many of the other bodies could be very relevant in drawing up transport plans. I am prepared to consider the other bodies that it might be necessary to bring in if a duty were introduced in terms of Network Rail. I shall not commit to bring anything back, but I am prepared to consider which other bodies might be brought in and whether it would be unrealistic to try to define them in legislation.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but she is including only what she thinks is necessary. In essence, she is saying that she thinks those bodies are important—they may or may not be—but that they are already covered by provisions in the Bill. In that reassurance, she is telling me only that if I press the amendment to a vote, she may be prepared to put the things that she thinks are important into the Bill. That gives me no guarantee about the particular person whom I think needs to be consulted in order for there to be a proper consultation process, or that local authorities will get their transport plans by speaking to the rail infrastructure manager.
Even with the Minister’s assurances, I am not reassured, and I intend to test the will of the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 8, page 10, line 33, at end add—
‘(2ZD) Where, due to exceptional local circumstances, a local transport authority wishes to implement policies which are in whole or in part at variance with the duties mentioned in subsection (2ZB) they shall be entitled to proceed without regard to the guidelines after issuing a public statement of “special local circumstances” setting out the factors which the local transport authority regard as being of sufficient importance to override the duties mentioned in subsection (2ZB).’.
I am well aware of the political maxim, “The later the hour, you don’t win arguments, you lose friends,” so my remarks will be somewhat shorter than they would have been had I been called a couple of hours ago. The amendment is reasonable, and I hope that it appeals to reasonable opinion across the Committee. It almost speaks for itself but I shall make a number of points about why I think it should be added to the Bill.
In effect, the amendment would alter clause 8 by giving a local authority in exceptional local circumstances the right to deviate and not to abide by the duties in (2ZB). Clause 8 states:
“Each local transport authority whose area is in England must...in developing policies in accordance with subsection 1(a), and...in carrying out their functions in accordance with subsection (1)(b), comply with the duties set out in subsection in (2ZB).”
Those duties are to
“take into account any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment, and...to have regard to any guidance issued for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State”.
It is not a wrecking amendment. It says that in exceptional local circumstances, where the transport authority feels that there is a good reason to deviate from the national guidelines set out by the Secretary of State, it would be able to do so, but only after making a declaration in those terms. As I understand it, that declaration would be open to legal challenge if it was made frivolously. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Derby, North wish me to give way, or was he just drinking water?

Bob Laxton: I am trying to drink water if I can get the top off the bottle.

Ann Winterton: Mr. Knight.

Greg Knight: I thought that I was being hailed, Lady Winterton.
May I give the Committee an example? It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at some point the Government may say that each town and city should have a low emission zone, and that cars that cannot comply with a certain level of emissions should either be banned from entering the city centre or the owner should face a charge. Let me take the Committee back a few years when the town of Corby depended almost exclusively on its steelworks. When the steelworks collapsed, not only did the majority of employed people in that town lose their job, they also faced immediate negative equity. One could purchase a freehold house in Corby at the time of the collapse for £1,000. Imagine if a similar tragedy happened to a local community and the Government said that a low emission zone must come in and everyone who had an older car suddenly found that they could not go into the city centre or that they had to pay an additional fee. That would be a huge blow to people who had already been kicked in the teeth by losing their job and having negative equity in their property.
In those circumstances, the local council might say, “For the moment we have exceptional local circumstances and we do not wish to impose this particular policy.” I defy anyone to say that that would be an unreasonable decision in such circumstances. The key word in the amendment is “exceptional”. I hope that the Minister can see the sense of saying that where a local issue is so important that it is regarded as exceptional by the local transport authority, the authority should be allowed, in those circumstances, to deviate from guidance that would otherwise be regarded as quite acceptable and the norm. All my amendment seeks to do is to make that provision clear in the Bill.

Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment illustrates some of the controversial issues around environmental policies. I am not sure whether he is supported by his Front-Bench colleagues. The Government fear that the amendment would undermine the steps that we want local authorities to take to contribute towards improving our environment.
The amendment would enable a local authority to develop and implement policies that could ignore Government policy and guidance on the protection and improvement of the environment where it considers that “exceptional local circumstances” applied, without any real reference to what those circumstances might be. As a Government, we are aware of the need for individual local authorities to take local factors into account in drawing up and implementing their transport policies. That is at the heart of our approach, whether those policies concern tackling congestion, providing high quality bus services or addressing environmental issues.
There is absolutely no problem in saying that individual circumstances will prevail, but at the same time, we are all aware of the need to protect the environment and to address climate change. That is why the Bill allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on fulfilling the new environmental duty introduced by clause 8. Interestingly, the Committee has just divided, with the two opposition parties wanting a greater emphasis and direct reference to the environment in the Bill. The amendment would undermine what is happening in the Bill and what we are trying to do.

Graham Stringer: Protection of the environment is important. When I first read the amendment I thought that it was otiose. Whether it is necessary or not depends on how we define “taking into account” and “having regard”. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on that, because the way in which she is developing her arguments seems to be to interpret “taking into account” and “having regard” as having to follow the Government’s policy, even if it is detrimental to the area.

Ann Winterton: What we mean by “have regard to” or to “take account of” an obligation is first, to give attention to the matter to which the duty applies; secondly, to consider the contents of that matter in relation to the proposal or plans under consideration; and thirdly, to adjust those proposals or plans to take into account the additional information provided or to determine that no such adjustment need be made.
In terms of the Bill allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on fulfilling the new environmental duty introduced by clause 8, we want to see such guidance cover issues such as air quality, noise and climate change. Local authorities would need to address those in devising and implementing their transport policies and local transport plan and show how their local authorities will take local factors into account. That is a sensible approach and it gives authorities flexibility to reflect local circumstances without undermining the importance of addressing the sorts of environmental issues that I have already mentioned. In contrast, the amendment does not explain what exceptional local circumstances—something that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire thinks could justify an authority taking a different approach—might be. We believe that it would leave a large loophole so that an authority could bury its head in the sand were it minded to do so, and implement policies that take little or no account of the importance of the environment or of addressing climate change.

Jeremy Wright: Can we be very clear about this, before we decide on the merits or otherwise of the amendment? Is the Minister’s case that, in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, which could be described as exceptional, it would be proper for a local authority to say that it has had regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but has decided not to implement it because of exceptional circumstances? If that is the Minister’s case, the amendment may not be necessary. However, following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, it would be helpful if the Minister could be clear that that is what she is saying.

Ann Winterton: The difficulty is that the amendment is not clear. We want to see local flexibility within the transport plans of local authorities, but we also want it to be clear that we expect local authorities to take action. The problem with the amendment is that it does not say what those exceptional local circumstances would be, so it is difficult for Parliament to send a message about that. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned the closure of a steel plant. Such things are is difficult to anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman clearly wants to provide a way for local authorities not to have to implement some of these environmental policies. We believe that it is important that Government and Parliament send a message that such policies should be taken very seriously.

Greg Knight: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I refer her back to her own legal advice, which she quoted to the Committee earlier today? In the absence of any definition, the word “exceptional” means what we all think it means.

Ann Winterton: That is the problem with it being entirely within the legislation. Earlier we talked about the definition of “the economy”. When I looked at the lawyers’ interpretation, that is something that means what it would mean in normal parlance. However, something like “exceptional circumstances” is incredibly vague, and exceptional circumstances for one authority might be entirely different for another.

Angela Smith: In support of my right hon. Friend’s case, that defining “exceptional circumstances” is very difficult and is not defined in the amendment, I refer to the example given by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. Sheffield suffered large job losses due to the closure of steel plants back in the early 1980s—no thanks, let me add, to the policies of the Conservative party when it was in power. In fact, the impact on car ownership would have been very low at that time because many of the steelworkers would not have owned cars. The lowest levels of car ownership in Sheffield were in the steelworking areas. The variations according to local circumstances would have benefited the citizens of the south-west of the city where levels of car ownership were high and where job losses were at a minimum. In fact, I do not think that the example works to justify the amendment.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties in interpreting the precise meaning of proposed new section (2ZD) is that it is incredibly ambiguous. It could either be interpreted as meaning that provisions or guidance can be ignored or that the guidance as a whole can be ignored. Frankly, neither of those would be desirable. We want local authorities to take into account the policies and have regard to the guidance, but we then want them to make up their own mind about how to take policies forward in terms of the actions that they would take.

Stephen Hammond: The only trouble with the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough is that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was talking about a circumstance in another city. Therefore, one cannot suddenly compare one with the other. If there is the lowest level of car ownership in an area, one could say that that would not be exceptional circumstances under the conventional meaning of the word “exceptional”. The Minister is wriggling around in relation to what is a common parlance view of the word “exceptional”. As the Minister said about the meaning of “economic”, most people would have little problem with the meaning of “exceptional”. The Minister is wriggling around on that point.
One thing that I would like my right hon. Friend to clarify relates to the Minister making the whole of the special local circumstances seem as if they would be used in a completely anti-environmental way. There is nothing in what my right hon. Friend has said that could be taken to be anti-environmental, unless one chooses to read it in that way.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit naive in that respect because it is perfectly obvious from the amendment that the idea is to make it easier for local authorities to say that they do not want to implement the measure. Frankly, I see the amendment as a way of creating a loophole to enable local authorities to simply not carry out environmental policies, if they feel like being a bit difficult.

Stephen Hammond: Is the Minister not being naive in saying that there is not a common-sense definition of the word “exceptional”?

Ann Winterton: I hardly think that that is the point. We are talking about putting together “exceptional circumstances” without any definition of what that would be. If the hon. Gentleman were to try to draw up what all the exceptional circumstances could be, it would be impossible.

Stephen Hammond: When we went through this whole argument less than an hour ago, the Minister tried to tell us that there was a common-sense definition of the word “economic” and I said clearly to her that there was not because there is a wide-ranging interpretation of the word. The Minister is now trying to tell me that there is a wide-ranging interpretation of the word “exceptional”. The Minister is trying to have it both ways; she cannot have it both ways. If she accepted the earlier proposition, she should accept my proposition.

Ann Winterton: I could say the same the other way around. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that there is an interpretation of the word “economy” that most people would understand, how on earth does he think that there is an accepted interpretation of “exceptional local circumstances”. As he has said, that is a whole phrase that covers a range of different circumstances. I believe that the Conservative party is coming out in its true colours. It does not want to see those environmental measures being taken, and that is the point of its amendment.

Greg Knight: Someone said of something else, “I can’t tell you what it is but, when you see it, you will know it.” That is the common-sense approach to the word “exceptional”—not mundane, not everyday.

Bob Laxton: We all clearly understand the meaning of “exceptional”. The case of Corby that was cited by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was an exceptional set of circumstances. It was so exceptional, in fact, that I hope that it never occurs again. Let us look back slightly at its history. It was during a period of an extremely right-wing ideological Government. They were absolutely exceptional and I hope that they will not return again.

Ann Winterton: Order. I think that an intervention has to be exceptionally short.

Greg Knight: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, North. I wish to say in passing that, at the time, I represented his seat and he was a member of the local council.
There is no intention in the amendment to allow any local authority—to quote the Minister—just to ignore Government policies on the environment. Had that been the intention, I would not have used the words “exceptional local circumstances”. I would have said something like, “where the local transport authority thinks fit”. In other words, no restriction would be placed on its judgment. The amendment makes it clear that exceptional local circumstances have to exist for a policy that deviates in part from what the right hon. Lady set out in national guidelines to be implemented. She is perhaps deliberately misrepresenting what the amendment seeks to do. [Interruption.] Okay, I will rephrase that. In my view, the right hon. Lady has not given an accurate description to the Committee of the effects of the amendment. It is circumscribed by the word “exceptional”.

Jeremy Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could resolve the argument quickly if the Minister would say unequivocally that “having regard” to guidance may mean that a particular local authority can look at such guidance from the Secretary of State, but conclude that, in particular local circumstances, it should not be implemented? If that were the case, my right hon. Friend might consider that his amendment was not necessary.

Greg Knight: I wholeheartedly accept what my hon. Friend says. I invite the Minister to intervene. If she is saying that, if the Bill becomes law, it would be possible for a local authority to deviate when it had grounds to do so, of course I would conclude that my amendment was probably otiose and not push it further.

Ann Winterton: Perhaps I could help the right hon. Gentleman by clarifying that matters would always depend on the circumstances of a particular case. It could be legitimate for an authority to “have regard to” as he suggests, but that is not the same as “must comply with”. An authority must always make up its own mind. To blindly follow guidance, whatever it was, would be for the authority unlawfully to fetter its discretion. Of course, it has discretion, but that is entirely different from setting out a whole range of vague exceptional local circumstances that an authority could just decide would apply to its situation. We have taken the exactly right approach. Of course, there is local discretion, but there is guidance to which we want authorities to have regard.

Greg Knight: I welcome those words but, if the Minister had put them on the record several minutes ago, the debate would not have been as long. On the basis of her assurance that such matters could be legitimate and that there will be local discretion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watts.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 24 April at Nine o’clock.